RAMSHACKIN'S PROFILE

I have a dungeon where two party members get stuck and work together to get out. The puzzle mechanics involve the floor being split into black and white tiles. One character can only walk on the black tiles, while the white tiles act as walls, and reverse for the other character. The problem is there is no narrative reason for why they can't walk freely.

So how do you deal with gameplay mechanics that don't make sense from a story perspective?

One option is keeping them separate. The characters never mention or discuss the elaborate puzzles they are working their way through. Dialog is used for character building and advancing the plot, not for discussing why the party has to collect 4 planks to assemble a bridge over the river instead of swimming across.

The other option is to work the gameplay into the story. But I feel this is difficult to do without sounding like a cop-out. Oh hey, this is that one magic temple where your birth date determines what color tiles you can step on.

Maybe you just never have gameplay mechanics that don't fit the overall narrative?

I've been making games for over a decade. Now every few years, I go back and play my old games. This year, I decided to make a list of everything I've learned, good or bad, from my past games.

What concepts were so simple even 13 year old Ramshackin got it right? What mistakes kept being made despite repeatedly watching play testers run into them? Here's my list:

If there is a way to fully heal, player's will always rely on it, no matter how inconvenient
One game featured a coliseum where the party was fully healed after each battle. When a player needed a heal, they would leave where they were, walk to the coliseum, fight a battle, then walk back. This was fun for no one. But was too effective not to do.

If 4 characters can battle at a time, only 4 characters will be used
This comes in two flavors: large number of characters to recruit to the 4 man party, or large party of freely swappable characters, where only 4 can battle at a time. Having not finished a game of the second type, I'll use Edifice as my example. My party always consisted of the same characters. Craze must have known this when making the game, because there are battles that force you to use a random party.

This problem compounds when unused characters don't receive updated equipment or battle experience. I thought I could be clever by making side quests that required a certain character. It just meant I spent time on content that will never be played.

Defend/Guard option is never chosen
Some games make guard more enticing by offering a side benefit, like MP recovery. It ends up being the free MP heal command. Other games will force a battle with an enemy that charges, followed by a strong attack. The best battles aren't often inspired by the question, "How do I make this menu command useful?"

Don't wait until level 20 to introduce the interesting mechanics
This is the recurring theme of my games. The interesting skills, original mechanics, and character building come later in the game. I always have this need to ease players into the game by starting off with the generic RPG systems. Player's interest is gone by the time the game gets good.

Enemies should be more than bags of HP
Enemies never did anything interesting in my early games. No threat. Nothing to react to. The challenge was how fast you can kill them.

Repeatedly failing to apply a condition due to chance is frustrating
Especially when there is no indication that the boss was just straight up immune.

Players use money on combat; Aesthetics and minigames are second priority
I had a great idea. There would be a costume shop. Players could change the main character's graphic through buying all sorts of outfits. It would be awesome.

No one bought anything. All money went towards making the party better in combat. The only exception was towards the end of the game when the player was overflowing with money. And then, it wasn't to wear the outfits. It was for the completionist need to unlock everything.

Make sure the player knows where they can go
50 side quests aren't important when the player doesn't know where to go to start them. Maps are best when the exits are clear. I should have known my mapping was bad when I had to tell every player, "By the way, you can enter a different room by going here."

Don't underestimate giving the player mementos
This was one of my favorite parts of my earlier games. Each adventure would award you with a memento. A little item with no use outside of flavor text reminding you what you did to earn it. There is something satisfying about scrolling through the list near the end of the game.

Jumping can completely change the way players view the game world
A simple feature that opens up new opportunities for map design.

Enemy encounters are more enjoyable when there is a story behind them
Random encounters? Not too exciting. An enemy with personality and motive and a reason for the player to fight them? Much better.

One thing I just realized I liked about my earlier games: random encounters were unusual. Scripted encounters were the majority of battles.

The characters you interact with can really drive the game
Extending the previous to allies and NPCs. Sometimes friends want to play my old games. It's not because they loved the epic battle against the evil dragon. It's because they want to go back and once again meet the wacky characters we created when we were young.

Don't underestimate the driving force behind "who will I meet next?" and "I want to know more about him."